What are the "scriptures"?

What are the "Standard Works"?

Mormons often make excuses about nutty policies and pronouncements made by their "prophets" and "apostles" by referring to such things as not being contained in official scriptures, i.e. the "Standard Works".

But the current Mormon understanding of the Standard Works is not itself expressly stated in the Standard Works. And even if it were, it would then just be a self-referential assertion, based on circular reasoning. "The Standard Works are the Standard Works because something in the Standard Works says that the Standard Works are the Standard Works."

But not only do the Standard Works not even define what the Standard Works are, they do not even prescribe how such a determination would be made in the first place.

What about "scriptures" though? Surely, anything that qualifies as "scripture" would by definition become a part of the Standard Works.

Okay, then what is "scripture" according to the Doctrine and Covenants (which Mormons believe is one of the Standard Works)?

Well, it turns out that the D&C gets pretty loosey goosey when it comes to telling us what qualifies as scripture.

Basically, anything any person says under the influence of the Holy Ghost is scripture. In the passage below, we "learn" that any missionary can produce "scripture" merely by saying something that the Holy Ghost inspired the missionary to say.

+++

D&C 68:

1 My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 AND WHATSOEVER THEY SHALL SPEAK WHEN MOVED UPON BY THE HOLY GHOST SHALL BE SCRIPTURE, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

+++

It's easy to see how this could be a problem.

++++

A: "I was moved upon by the Holy Ghost when I said that!"

B: "I'm not buying it. I think the Holy Ghost is telling me that you weren't."

A: "But I was so!"

B: "Was not!"

A: "Was so!"

B: "Your mother has bad breath!"

A: "She does not!"

++++

Maybe it's worth noting, while we contemplate what is and is not scripture or revelation, that Joseph Smith sent the above-mentioned Orson Hyde on a mission...and while Orson was on his mission, Joseph Smith asked for Orson's wife's hand in "eternal marriage" (meaning that Joseph Smith boinked Orson's wife after sending Orson far, far away).

"Hey Orson, I am moved upon by the Holy Ghost to send you on a mission far, far away so that the coast will be clear for me to commit adultery with your wife...uh...I mean so that I can teach the principles of the new and everlasting covenant to your wife."

++++

I know the Gospel is supposed to be wonderful, fantastic, edifying and elevating and all that rot...but something's just not adding up.

Is Nelson, or any recent President/Prophet, adding to the D&C?
When was the last section and verse added to the D&C?
Do they consider the D&C "closed?"
Has any section in the D&C ever been completely removed (as opposed to tweaked, i.e. rewritten or rephrased)?

I took some Baptist friends to the Christian Science "Mother Church" here in Boston. I was polite and didn't debate the tourguide, but I was amused (and informed my comrades, later) that 1) Eddy's "textbook," "Science & Health With Key To the Scriptures" went through 382 (!!) editions and revisions in her lifetime alone! And 2) she frequently added, deleted, and changed things in her church bylaws, "The Manual."

So much for revelation.

a whole bunch more evidence of the dubiousness of any claim that the Doctrine & Covenants merits canonization as holy scripture (not to mention the dubiousness of the Mormon "canonization" process itself)....yes, ITA.

I'm waiting for part 37.

Part 37 is going to be a doozy!

Why not just write a book?

...why bother writing a book?

Don't take the "part [ ] of 100" too seriously. I may eventually get to 100. But the point of the title is to emphasize that there are literally hundreds of things that do not add up (logically or otherwise) in Mormonism. If I wanted to go for the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit, I could easily list 100 in a single post.

You know, low-hanging fruit as in, why would an omniscient god need to give people secret names and passwords ("tokens") to make it possible for them to enter the highest realms of heaven? And if the tokens and other elements of the "endowment" are purely symbolic, why is the symbolism of the tokens so stupid and why can no Mormon make any intelligible explanation of the "true" meaning behind the symbolism that's not both ridiculous and inconsistent with other Mormons' attempts at explaining the symbolism?

Me too - Abraham.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Attributed to Alan Greenspan but might have been said by any church leader trying to dismiss the words of past church leaders!

"[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

That guy missed his true calling. He should have been a Mormon General Authority. This one quote encapsulates all of Mormon doctrine.